Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice

FIVE CHARACTERIZING CONCEPTS FOR AN INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE APPROACH

To identify a main set of characterizing concepts of landscape approaches, we drew on a structured review of the literature and

two articles. The structured review focused on papers that provided either (1) guidelines, principles, and/or lesson learned for landscape approaches and/or (2) a conceptual framework for landscape-scale approaches addressing some aspect of resource management, both within the context of social-ecological landscapes, excluding purely ecologically based or social-based approaches (see Appendix 1 for a detailed description of the methods). These papers represented a range of theories and conceptual framings of landscape approaches. Drawing on 6 cross-cutting concepts identified across the 43 articles reviewed, combined with other principles/characteristics derived from both expert insight (Sayer et al. 2013) and a review of applied case studies (Milder et al. 2014), we selected five main concepts. The review and the two articles are complementary. The review drew on different theories about landscape approaches; the first article reflected expert opinion; and the second article discussed landscape approaches in practice. Therefore, they broadly represent the convergence between the different ways of thinking about landscapes. We discuss the five concepts in the context of the process of taking an ILA.

Although it could be argued that Sayer et al. (2013) provides a more comprehensive list of principles or concepts to guide landscape approaches than the concepts chosen to be discussed here, we provide additional, different material that constructively contributes to the discussion. By focusing on more general concepts and highlighting the continuums in which each can be applied, we present additional considerations and distinctions for applying these concepts in practice.

Table 3 provides a summary of the different concepts identified in the literature review and two selected articles. Figure 2 provides

a simplified comparison; the five concepts we selected for discussion are boldfaced. Multifunctionality, interdisciplinairty, participation, and complexity were chosen because they appear in two or three of the comparative works: the review and the two articles. Sustainability was included because in the literature review we observed that it was a term commonly included in either articles’ titles and/or objectives, but often was not clearly defined. If sustainability is a potential goal of ILAs, what is meant by the term needs to be clearly defined to be achievable. For this reason, we included sustainabilty as one of the five concepts. Some discussion of the other nonboldfaced terms in Figure 2 is also included under the main five concepts.

Table 3. Summary of the main concepts for landscapes approaches (or initiatives) identified in our review of the literature, Sayer et al. (2013), and Milder et al. (2014). Bolded concepts are the main ones identified for comparison (Fig. 2).

A Review of the Literature (Our review)

Expert Insight (Sayer et al. 2013)

Case Studies (Milder et al. 2014)

We conducted a structured review of the literature selecting 43 articles (see Appendix 1 for methods). Although we reviewed a limited number of articles compared to the extensive literature that exists, the review focused specifically on articles that were addressing both environmental and social objectives and providing a conceptual framework or set of principles/guidelines. These articles represent more theoretical/characterization literature explicitly framed around social-ecological landscape approaches.

The top six cross-cutting concepts identified across the articles include: (1) complexity (81%), (2) interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity (71%), (3) sustainability (71%), (4) participation (64%), (5) tradeoffs (45%), and (6) holism (45%; % values represent the percent of articles in the review in which the concept was found present).

Based upon both a review of the literature and expert insight, Sayer et al. (2013:8349) provide “Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses.” These include:

1. Continual learning and adaptive management †

2. Common concern entry point 3. Multiple scales † 4. Multifunctionality 5. Multiple stakeholders ‡ 6. Negotiated and transparent change logic 7. Clarifications of rights and responsibilities ‡ 8. Participatory and user-friendly monitoring ‡ 9. Resilience †

10. Strengthened stakeholder capacity ‡

Though a rough characterization, the principles with a ‡ here are interpreted as relating to participatory processes whereas the principles with † can all relate to different concepts around complexity theory or complex systems.

Milder et al. (2014:70) reviewed 87 case studies in Africa of what they term, integrated landscape initiatives. They define an integrated landscape initiative as a “...project, program, platform, initiative, or set of activities that: (1) explicitly seeks to improve food production, biodiversity or ecosystem conservation, and rural livelihoods; (2) works at a landscape scale and includes deliberate planning, policy, management, or support activities at this scale; (3) involves inter-sectoral coordination or alignment of activities, policies, or investments at the level of ministries, local government entities, farmer and community organizations, NGOs, donors, and/or the private sector; and (4) is highly participatory, supporting adaptive, collaborative management within a social learning framework.”

The above points are interpreted to represent the following concepts: (1) multifunctionality; (2) addressing the landscape scale; (3) interdisciplinarity/cross-sectoral approaches; and (4) participation.

Fig. 2. Summary of main concepts identified in Table 3. The five concepts in bold are the focus of discussion in this paper.

Multifunctionality

Multifunctionality can be described as achieving multiple objectives or functions at the same time. Multifunctionality in the context of landscape approaches is reflected by the multiple objectives of an ILA. These objectives are paramount because they largely define the landscape and the landscape approach. Furthermore, part of the rationale for taking a more systems- oriented view and using the landscape scale in landscape approaches is to be able to more effectively achieve multifunctionality by better recognizing and addressing both synergies and trade-offs.

One of the pitfalls of past integrated approaches has been not being able to effectively achieve multifunctionality or win-win goals (Tallis et al. 2008, Sayer 2009, McShane et al. 2011). Although sounding ideal, achieving win-win goals in practice has been challenging and an exception rather than then norm (Wells and McShane 2004, Tallis et al. 2008). In the context of biodiversity conservation and human well-being, McShane et al. (2011) describes meeting these dual objectives to be more about hard choices than win-win outcomes. Therefore, one of the challenges of ILAs is to go beyond past integrated approaches such as Integrated Conservation Development Projects, Integrated Natural Resource Management, Integrated Rural Development, and Integrated Water Resources Management. Instead of assuming win-win outcomes, ILAs should frame realistic objectives while recognizing trade-offs to be able to achieve multifunctionality within landscapes.

These objectives may include a set of both primary and secondary objectives. The primary objectives drive the ILA and inform its design, with the secondary objectives factored in but not treated as driving priorities. For example, Harvey et al. (2013) focus on the synergies between two primary objectives, climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. They also mention possible secondary objectives: food security, biodiversity conservation, and poverty alleviation. Similarly DeFries and Rosenzweig (2010:19631) focus on achieving both climate change mitigation and increasing food production, with mention of the possible secondary objectives of “biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, ecosystem services, and social and cultural aspects.” As part of this process, it can prove constructive to address the four points highlighted by Mastrangelo et al. (2014), who examined landscape multifunctionality from the ecosystem services perspective. These are “(i) the multifunctionality of what ..., (ii) the type of multifunctionality ..., (iii) the procedure of multifunctionality assessments, and (iv) the purpose of multifunctionality” (Mastrangelo et al. 2014:345). Clarifying each of these points in an ILA will help to both guide the process delineating pathways of change and increase the chance of achieving the multiple objectives.

Part of the process will also require some form of participation to engage relevant stakeholders both within and outside the landscape. One way to engage stakeholders is through a common- concern point of entry, which may involve first choosing an “easy- to-reach intermediate target” to facilitate engagement and to start building trust through shared learning processes (Sayer et al. 2013:8351). Once engagement and a certain level of trust between stakeholders have been achieved, the focus can shift to working toward the primary objectives. This process can also be used to help define communal objectives among stakeholders (Stringer et al. 2006).

Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity

One of the rationales for taking a landscape approach is to go beyond sectoral approaches to be able to better address multiple objectives within complex systems/landscapes. Though not synonymous, cross-sectoral approaches and interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary approaches engage stakeholders with different worldviews/expertise to achieve multifunctionality. Interdisciplinary approaches focus more on linking different research disciplines together; cross-sectoral approaches are based on multistakeholder processes relating more to practice. We link the two using Lattuca’s (2003) continuum of interdisciplinarity as a basis. Table

4 outlines the kinds of research questions associated with each of the four different kinds of interdisciplinarity described by Lattuca (2003) and links them to cross-sectoral concepts within landscape approaches.

Here, we focus on transdisciplinarity because collaborative integrated approaches are needed to address complex landscapes. In our literature review, the papers that came closest to a transdisciplinary approach were those that focused on the management and/or the planning process itself. In these instances many stakeholders had to be involved in the process in order to, for example, review and assess different future landscape scenarios (Bohnet and Smith 2007), manage conflicting land values and land uses (Duff et al. 2009), or determine the most appropriate

estuary-based enterprise activities in local communities (Bowd et al. 2012).

The process of transdisciplinarity could then follow two main trajectories: a research approach or a planning/management approach. Cross-sectoral approaches will likely involve some level of planning and engagement of stakeholders from different sectors both within and outside the landscape. For research-led approaches, this will involve action research, i.e., doing research across disciplines while at the same time working toward implementation of specific development objectives (Frost et al. 2006). The stakeholder or actor leading the approach will likely determine the kind of approach and the level of research involved. Furthermore, many argue that participatory approaches are needed to effectively address interdisciplinarity/transdisciplinarity to be inclusive of the multiple dimensions and interactions at the landscape scale (e.g., Sayer 2005, Pfund et al. 2008, Ghazoul et al. 2009, Musacchio 2009a, Milder et al. 2011, Bowd et al. 2012). Tools that can be used to help reconcile trade-offs include drawing on modeled scenarios and visioning future potential landscapes (Antrop 2006, Potschin and Haines-Young 2006, Bohnet and Smith 2007, Pearson and Gorman 2010, Klug 2012).

Participation

Participation, the only concept present across both articles and the review (Fig. 2), is directly aligned with the process of an ILA. However, although often quoted in a range of literature related to resource management, what participation looks like, who is involved, and what kind of processes should be applied are not often specified (Stringer et al. 2006). Some of the different kinds of participation include consultation, i.e., collecting information from targeted actors/stakeholders about their views on predetermined issues; engagement, which can be a form of consultation or bringing multiple actors together in a dialogue; social learning, i.e., opportunities for exchange of information and learning between stakeholders; and devolution, i.e., participants are given decision-making power. These kinds of participation can be integrated at different stages in planning and/ or management processes, e.g., defining objectives/management problems, planning, and monitoring (Stringer et al. 2006).

Duff et al. (2009) make a distinction between the kinds of participation to be facilitated. They advocate for collaborative participation that engages all stakeholders on equal levels instead of individually bringing their contributions to the table, i.e., an integrative approach, to avoid the disempowerment of already- marginalized stakeholders. Therefore, the process of participation has many implications for social power that need to be directly considered when designing and implementing participatory processes. Promoting social learning is one potential tool to reduce power dynamics between stakeholders. Within adaptive management cycles, Stringer et al. (2006) found that to promote social learning, participatory processed are needed that are iterative and flexible, promoting two-way flows of information and communication both across horizontal scales, e.g. across stakeholder groups, and vertical scales, e.g. across institutional levels. Although it does not necessarily make everyone agree on

a shared set of values, social learning does have the potential to allow stakeholders to better understand each other’s point of view and be more willing to work toward a more favorable outcome

Table 4. The four types of interdisciplinarity described in Lattuca (2003)’s interdisciplinary continuum linked with how these might be applied in a landscape approach.

Type of Scholarship

Example Informed Disciplinarity

Research Questions

In a Landscape Approach

Disciplinary questions requiring

Sectoral approaches that consider

Private sector approaches to reduce

outreach to other disciplines

activities of other sectors or other risk by making their value chains dimensions in the landscape

more efficient, focusing on their specific commodity but considering other influencing factors at the landscape scale (e.g., Kissinger et al. 2013).

Synthetic Interdisciplinarity

Questions that link disciplines

Approaches that link sectors with

Approaches with primary

multiple sector-based objectives

objectives such as water provision and maintaining biological corridors that recognizes other dimensions in the landscapes, such as farmer’s activities, but only addresses these dimensions to the extent that they impact the outcomes of the driving objectives (e.g., Sayer 2009).

Transdisciplinarity

Questions that cross disciplines

Cross-sectoral approaches

Looking for synergistic adaption addressing cross-sectoral objectives and mitigation options (primary using multistakeholder/

objectives) across a range of land

participatory processes

uses with impacts for water supply, food production, livelihoods, and biodiversity (relating to secondary objectives) with varying stakeholder interests (e.g., Harvey et al. 2013).

Conceptual Interdisciplinarity

Questions without a compelling

Collaborative approach defining

Envisioning future scenarios in a

disciplinary basis

objectives through the process itself landscape through participatory without a specific initial framing

processes with stakeholders determining which projection they would like to follow (e.g., Bohnet and Smith 2007).

for all (Stringer et al. 2006). Integrating both local and/or Answering the following questions can assist in this process: indigenous and scientific knowledge can also greatly contribute

where, i.e., in what stage of the ILA; how, i.e., what kind of to this process.

participatory activities; and for whom, i.e., who is to be involved and why, including considerations of social power dynamics.

Challenges for using participatory processes include (1) they will have to be to some extent context defined, with different possible

Including both collaborative processes and social learning could kinds of participation at different stages in the management/

greatly strengthen management outcomes as long as the capacity planning process, i.e., there can be no specific, formulaic

to implement such processes is present. guidelines for participation in an ILA; and (2) they will often need

Complexity

a specific set of enabling factors to allow for effective Landscapes can be described as complex social-ecological systems participation. Potential enabling factors include the presence or

made up of a range of different processes occurring on different creation of a neutral facilitator and/or boundary institutions that

scales. Seeing the landscape as an emergent whole instead of the stakeholders can trust to facilitate participatory processes, and

sum of its parts is part of the holism versus reductionism debate sufficient funds over a long enough time frame to support both

within systems-thinking literature (Wu and Loucks 1995, Jackson the management/planning and participatory activities. There will

2006, Zexian and Xuhui 2010). However, holism and also need to be significant buy-in from major stakeholders

reductionism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and as involved. If certain stakeholders choose to exercise a

Jackson (2006) states, both can be used complementarily. Looking disproportionate amount of power to advance their interests, then

at a landscape does require taking a holistic view while at the same such participatory and collaborative management processes may

time addressing the specific parts that make up the whole. The not be possible. First, the majority of relevant stakeholders will

emergent patterns and processes making up the whole within a need to have a basic level of interest and willingness to engage.

landscape are part of the inherent complexity of such systems. Having a common-concern entry point as described by Sayer et al. (2013) could help to assist in this process.

The interactions within and between social and ecological systems create a number of patterns and processes at the landscape scale.

For effective participatory process in an ILA, it is important to In large part, these are defined by the spatially heterogeneity of define what participation means in the specific context.

the landscape, which is usually made up a number of different the landscape, which is usually made up a number of different

Drawing on concepts from complexity science, Parrott and Meyer (2012) present five succinct recommendations to address complex landscape systems: (1) work with a conceptual model of the landscape as a complex system; (2) understand and document emergent patterns and processes by monitoring the landscape at multiple spatial and temporal scales; (3) build and maintain adaptive capacity to buffer against change; (4) take advantage of the system’s internal memory, i.e., mimic natural processes; and (5) work with envelopes of possibilities and alternative futures.

These recommendations are strongly linked to Panarchy theory, which outlines a framework for understanding and interpreting complex social-ecological systems (Holling 2001, Gunderson and Holling 2002). According to this theory, in dynamic, uncertain systems overall adaptive capacity can be promoted by strengthening three general areas: potential, i.e., the “wealth” of the system, which can allow for change; connectedness, i.e., controllability of the system, which determines flexibility or rigidity of connectedness; and resilience, i.e., the adaptive capacity or measure of vulnerability. Adaptive capacity combined with opportunities will then foster the environment for holistic sustainable development, the basis for Parrott and Meyer’s (2012) third recommendation. This will also, according to Jackson et al. (2010), allow for “sustainagility” versus other more mainstream conceptions of sustainability; see the Sustainability section.

In the process of the landscape approach, specific primary objectives will require looking at specific parts of the landscape, e.g., forested areas and/or agricultural production areas. At the same time, the emergent whole also needs to be assessed to effectively address drivers within the landscape. For example, in the case of addressing deforestation, it has been recognized that most of the drivers of deforestation occur outside of the forest area (Geist and Lambin 2002, Hosonuma et al. 2012), thereby requiring a more holistic approach encompassing a larger scale to effectively address such drivers instead of focusing solely on the forest alone (Bernard et al. 2013).

To be able to address drivers in the landscape, levers of change will need to be identified by understanding the parts that make up the whole, the interactions between the parts, and the emergent whole. See Parrott and Meyer’s (2012) conceptual diagram of a complex social-ecological system. Part of this will include understanding both spatially explicit patterns and processes within the landscape. In this process both adaptive flexibility and

a certain level of structure are needed. In a review of four NGOs’ conservation activities, Pressey and Bottrill (2009) found that although all NGOs had varying approaches, systematic methods had significant benefits in the planning process. At the same time, it will be essential to respond to change through an iterative process. Concepts such as action research (Frost et al. 2006, Sayer et al. 2008, O’Farrell and Anderson 2010), social learning (Frost

et al. 2006, Stringer et al. 2006, Bohnet and Smith 2007, Sayer et al. 2008, Milder et al. 2011, Bowd et al. 2012), and adaptive management (Frost et al. 2006, Pfund et al. 2008, Chazdon et al. 2009, Duff et al. 2009, Pfund 2010) have been suggested as tools to foster such an approach. Sayer et al. ’s (2013) sixth principle, having a negotiated and transparent change logic involving a theory of change, i.e., a logic model of how to get from point A to point B or how to instigate desired change within the system over a specified period of time, can be one potential tool to balance both a structured approach and “muddling through ” (Sayer et al. 2008, 2013). This change logic ideally will be developed and agreed on by all stakeholders involved in the process.

Sustainability

The terms “sustainability” and “sustainable landscapes” are widely applied. Wu (2013b) provides a comprehensive summary of five types of sustainability in the context of landscapes: the Brundtland definition, the triple bottom line, weak versus strong sustainability, human well-being, and ecosystem services. Here we draw on some of these concepts focusing on an adaptive approach to sustainability.

In the range of interpretations of sustainability, Robinson (2004) points to two main distinctions: sustainability and sustainable development. Both of these terms can be related to the Brundtland Commission’s definition of sustainability: “meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generation to meet their own needs”(World Commission on Environment and Development 1987:23). According to Robinson (2004:370), sustainability focuses on “the ability of humans to continue to live within environmental constraints,” whereas sustainable development focuses on the radical message of the Commission: the environment cannot be addressed without simultaneously addressing social conditions requiring growth to improve livelihoods. The definition of sustainable development has been embraced in economic policy and recognized as a dominant definition of sustainability within government and the private sector (Pearce 2002). This notion has been extended as a founding theoretical framework for many international development initiatives, with a focus on integrating social, environmental, and economic dimensions to reach development goals (e.g., World Bank 2001; Division for Sustainable Development, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/about. html ). Since then many models of sustainability have been created (see Wu 2013b); one of the better known ones is the sustainability stool resting on three legs: social, economic, and environmental (Robinson 2004), a.k.a., the triple bottom line (Wu 2013b).

Both Antrop (2006) and Jackson et al. (2010) state that these interpretations of sustainability do not account for the dynamic nature of social-ecological systems. Antrop (2006) found that natural and human capital-based landscape approaches are too economically driven to foster strong sustainability operating within environmental limits versus weak sustainability, focusing on sustainable growth without recognizing environmental limits; see Ekins et al. (2003) and Wu (2013b) for further discussion. On the other hand, the preservation of landscape qualities indicates that the landscape usually is being addressed in parts, not as an integrated whole. To have a truly holistic approach for landscape sustainability, emergent properties and landscape states need to

Table 5. Continuums for each of the five concepts discussed. Some are more developed than others, for example Lattuca’s (2003) continuum for interdisciplinarity vs the rough comparison for complexity, but the overall objective of this table is to demonstrate the range of application for each of the concepts. In an integrated landscape approach (ILA), ideally more of these concepts will be engaged toward the right end of the table, but will be largely dependent on the capacity and interest that exists. See sections on each concept for more details about each.

Continuums of Concepts Multifunctionality

Sectoral approach with one-few primary objectives

[Sectoral/ Monofunctionality]

Multiple primary objectives and secondary objectives crossing multiple sectors/disciplines [Integrative/ Multifunctionality]

Participation No or low one-way participation (e.g., consultation)

Integrative participation

Collaborative horizontal participation

Vertical and horizontal collaborative participation

Interdisciplinarity Informed disciplinarity

Synthetic interdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinarity Conceptual interdisciplinarity Sustainability

Weak and/or static sustainability

Strong and/or iterative sustainability (i.e., sustainagility)

Complexity No adaptive capacity in approach (e.g., managing for current trajectories)

-> Adaptive/ iterative approach (e.g., adaptive management: managing for changing dynamic future states)

be managed as changing, nonstatic entities. Jackson et al. (2010) draw on similar concepts framing the idea of “sustainagility,” which emphasizes the need to manage for adaptive capacity and not just persistence of current trajectories. Following these arguments, systems will have to adapt functions to changing conditions for healthy ecosystems to be truly sustainable. This process will involve considering trade-offs at multiple scales.

Similar sentiments are discussed by Wu (2013b:1013), who describes a working definition of landscape sustainability as “the capacity of a landscape to consistently provide long-term, landscape-specific ecosystem services essential for maintaining and improving human well-being in a regional context and despite environmental and sociocultural changes.” Part of this process involves strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability.

In the process of a landscape approach, what is meant by sustainability should be explicitly stated, especially if included as either a primary or a secondary objective. It is essential to address the questions of what is being sustained, why it is being sustained, and at what scales it is being sustained. Adaptive management, an iterative process of treating policies and interventions like experiments and using outcomes to inform future decisions (Holling 1978, Walters 1986), can be used to facilitate adaptive capacity to help manage for “sustainagility,” with the idea that this will create stronger outcomes that meet multifunctionality objectives.

OPERATIONALIZING THE INTEGRATED LANDSCAPE APPROACH

In the process of taking an ILA, there is a need to balance both structure and adaptive flexibility. The overarching goal is to create multifunctionality, but beyond this, landscape approaches will be largely context dependent. When comparing the different kinds of landscape approaches in Table 2, the ILA is the most comprehensive, with the strongest focus on achieving mulitfunctionality as part of its objectives. However, it is also the most demanding regarding the process, requiring engagement across disciplines and/or sectors, as well as the facilitation of

collaborative participatory processes. Furthermore, because it is in part context dependent, there is no one clear road map for how to take an ILA.

Despite this, the discussion of the five previously outlined concepts highlights some of the considerations that need to be made in the ILA process. To start, objectives need to be clearly defined in such a way that they are both achievable and measureable. This will likely involve both primary and secondary objectives. Achievement of multifunctionality will then involve compromise and a certain number of trade-offs. Identifying levers to address drivers within the landscape to create favorable change will be part of this process. Using transdisciplinary or cross- sectoral approaches can allow integrated thinking and collaboration to occur and can help to minimize the number of trade-offs. Participatory approaches will be a key part of the process, but exactly what kind of participation will be largely context dependent. Processes that involve collaborative engagement and social learning, and reduce potential marginalization of stakeholders by accounting for social power dynamics are ideal. For complexity and sustainability, using an adaptive management approach to promote both adaptive capacity and “sustainagility” will help to encompass and address

a certain level of complexity while also more effectively addressing sustainability. Lastly, if sustainability is included as an objective, it needs to be clearly defined.

Although these concepts sound theoretically appealing, applying them in practice will be challenging. In some cases, an ILA will not always be realistic; instead, a sectoral landscape approach (see Table 2) may be more appropriate based on the resources and capacity present. Either way, when taking a landscape approach, the extent to which it is integrated should be examined. When applying the five concepts discussed, a continuum of application for each exists (Table 5). Engaging in processes toward the right side of the spectrum is ideal, promoting more integration within the approach, but again this engagement may be limited by resources and capacity.

If taking an ILA, having both a structured conceptual framework of the landscape and landscape approach as well as a “negotiated and transparent change logic” (Sayer et al. 2013:8351) or theory of change can help to provide structure for the approach, while including iterative, adaptive processes within this structured design to allow for a certain level of learning by doing or muddling through. Seeing the landscape as a complex system such as outlined by Parrott and Meyer (2012) is one potential conceptual framework that can be applied.

More research is needed using indicators to monitor and evaluate both the processes and outcomes of sectoral landscape approaches and ILAs, focusing specifically on the degree to which multifunctionality has been achieved. Furthermore, more attention needs to be paid to participatory and transdisciplinary/ cross-sectoral approaches to better understand how these processes can shape and define the ILA in practice; detailed cases studies of these approaches are needed.

CONCLUSION

The application of a landscape approach can widely vary in its focus, approach, and what it encompasses. Although sometimes

a more sectoral landscape approach may be the most realistic choice because of limitations in capacity, the ILA holds much more potential to effectively address multiple objectives and in some cases wicked problems. To successfully achieve the desired multifunctionality in a landscape approach, more attention needs to be paid to how the process of taking an ILA is both designed and implemented. As part of this process, a continuum of application exists for five of the characterizing concepts: multifunctionality, transdisciplinarity, participation, complexity, and sustainability. To move toward a truly integrated landscape approach, the nuances of application for each of these concepts need to be examined and accounted for.

Although there is still much more to be learned through actual application of such processes, the first step is recognizing the multiple dimensions of each of these concepts and how different levels of application of each can lead to very different outcomes, all under the same auspices of taking a landscape approach. More effort and attention are needed to move toward operationalizing truly integrated landscape approaches in practice.

Responses to this article can be read online at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses. php/7175

Acknowledgments:

The ideas within this paper were developed over time, in part on through a number of casual exchanges with colleagues. A writeshop at the Bellagio Rockefeller Center was especially constructive in this process, including critical feedback from Celia A. Harvey. Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge the input, support, and ideas of Todd S. Rosenstock, Mehmood U. I. Hassan, and Florence Bernard on earlier versions of the manuscript. Last but not least, the authors would like to recognize the important feedback from the editor and the two anonymous reviewers whose comments proved greatly constructive. This work was made possible

by the Government of Norway (Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative/Norwegian Agency for Development), the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research research program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry, and the International Institute for Sustainable Development Young Leaders for a Sustainable Future Program.

LITERATURE CITED

African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). 2014. Where we work. AWF, Nairobi, Kenya. [online] URL: http://www.awf.org/where-we- work

Angelstam, P., M. Grodzynskyi, K. Andersson, R. Axelsson, M. Elbakidze, A. Khoroshev, I. Kruhlov, and V. Naumov. 2013. Measurement, collaborative learning and research for sustainable use of ecosystem services: landscape concepts and Europe as laboratory. Ambio 42(2):129-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13280-012-0368-0

Antrop, M. 2006. Sustainable landscapes: contradiction, fiction or utopia? Landscape and Urban Planning 75(3-4):187-197. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.014

ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins (ASB). 2013b. Architecture of REALU: reducing emissions from all land uses. ASB, Nairobi, Kenya. [online] URL: http://www.asb.cgiar.org/ content/realu-reducing-emissions-all-land-uses

ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins (ASB). 2013a. ASB benchmark sites. ASB, Nairobi, Kenya. [online] URL: http:// www.asb.cgiar.org/asb-benchmark-sites

Balint, P. J., R. E. Stewart, A. Desai, and L. C. Walters. 2011. Wicked environmental problems: managing uncertainty and conflict. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. http://dx.doi. org/10.5822/978-1-61091-047-7

Bernard, F., P. A. Minang, M. van Noordwijk, O. E. Freeman, and L. A. Duguma, editors. 2013. Towards a landscape approach for reduction emissions: a substantive report of The Reducing Emissions from All Land Uses (REALU) project. World Agroforestry Centre-ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. [online] URL: http://asb.cgiar.org/PDFwebdocs/Substantive%20Global% 20Report_REALU%20II_FINAL_15nov_2_standard.pdf

Bohnet, I., and D. M. Smith. 2007. Planning future landscapes in the Wet Tropics of Australia: a social-ecological framework. Landscape and Urban Planning 80(1-2):137-152. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.07.001

Bowd, R., N. Quinn, D. C. Kotze, D. G. Hay, and M. Mander. 2012. The identification of potential resilient estuary-based enterprises to encourage economic empowerment in South Africa: a toolkit approach. Ecology and Society 17(3): 15. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04840-170315

Chazdon, R. L., C. A. Harvey, O. Komar, D. M. Griffith, B. G. Ferguson, M. Martínez-Ramos, H. Morales, R. Nigh, L. Soto- Pinto, M. van Breugel, and S. M. Philpott. 2009. Beyond reserves:

a research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes. Biotropica 41(2):142-153. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2008.00471.x

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 2013. (2): 30. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/ Global landscapes forum: final report. UNFCCC COP 19 Warsaw,

iss2/art30/

Poland, November 16-17. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. [online] Geist, H. J., and E. F. Lambin, 2002. Proximate causes and URL: http://www.landscapes.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/documents/ underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation: tropical forests GLF-FinalReport_en.pdf are disappearing as the result of many pressures, both local and

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 2014 regional, acting in various combinations in different geographical Sentinel landscapes. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. [online] URL:

locations. BioScience 52(2):143-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568 http://www.cifor.org/sentinel-landscapes/home.html (2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2

Council of Europe. 2000. European landscape convention. Ghazoul, J., C. Garcia, and C. G. Kushalappa. 2009. Landscape European Treaty Series No. 176. Council of Europe, Strasboug,

labelling: a concept for next-generation payment for ecosystem France. [online] URL: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/

service schemes. Forest Ecology and Management 258 Treaties/Html/176.htm (9):1889-1895. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.038

DeFries, R., and C. Rosenzweig. 2010. Toward a whole-landscape Gómez-Sal, A., J.-A. Belmontes, and J.-M. Nicolau. 2003. approach for sustainable land use in the tropics. Proceedings of

Assessing landscape values: a proposal for a multidimensional the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

conceptual model. Ecological Modelling 168(3):319-341. http:// 107(46):19627-19632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011163107 dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3800(03)00144-3

Duff, G., D. Garnett, P. Jacklyn, J. Landsberg, J. Ludwig, J. Gunderson, L., and C. S. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: understanding Morrison, P. Novelly, D. Walker, and P. Whitehead. 2009. A

transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, collaborative design to adaptively manage for landscape

Washington D.C., USA.

sustainability in north Australia: lessons from a decade of cooperative research. Landscape Ecology 24(8):1135-1143. http://

Harvey, C. A., M. Chacón, C. I. Donatti, E. Garen, L. Hannah,

A. Andrade, L. Bede, D. Brown, A. Calle, J. Chará, C. Clement, dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9236-5 E. Gray, M. H. Hoang, P. Minang, A. M. Rodríguez, C. Seeberg-

Ekins, P., S. Simon, L. Deutsch, C. Folke, and R. De Groot. 2003. Elverfeldt, B. Semroc, S. Shames, S. Smukler, E. Somarriba, E.

A framework for the practical application of the concepts of Torquebiau, J. van Etten, and E. Wollenberg. 2014. Climate-smart critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecological

landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating Economics 44(2-3):165-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009

adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conservation (02)00272-0 Letters 7(2):77-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/conl.12066

Farina, A. 2000. The cultural landscape as a model for the Holling, C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and integration of ecology and economics. BioScience 50(4):313-320.

management. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0313:TCLAAM]2.3.

Holling, C. S. 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, CO;2 ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4(5):390-405. http://

Field, D. R., P. R. Voss, T. K. Kuczenski, R. B. Hammer, and V. dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5

C. Radeloff. 2003. Reaffirming social landscape analysis in Hosonuma, N., M. Herold, V. De Sy, R. S. De Fries, M. landscape ecology: a conceptual framework. Society & Natural Resources 16(4):349-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920390178900 Brockhaus, L. Verchot, A. Angelsen, and E. Romijn, 2012. An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in

Fischer, J., D. B. Lindenmayer, and A. D. Manning. 2006. developing countries. Environmental Research Letters 7 Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding

(4):044009. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009 principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4(2):80-86. http://dx.doi.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2014. Livelihoods and landscapes strategy. IUCN, Gland,

org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0080:BEFART]2.0.CO;2 Switzerland. [online] URL: http://www.iucn.org/about/work/ Forman, R. T. T. 1995b. Land mosaics: the ecology of landscapes

programmes/forest/fp_our_work/fp_projects/fp_our_work_ll/ and regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Jackson, L., M. van Noordwijk, J. Bengtsson, W. Foster, L. Lipper, Forman, R. T. T. 1995a. Some general principles of landscape

M. Pulleman, M. Said, J. Snaddon, and R. Vodouhe. 2010. and regional ecology. Landscape Ecology 10(3):133-142. http://

Biodiversity and agricultural sustainagility: from assessment to dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00133027 adaptive management. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2(1):80-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.007

Forman, R. T. T., and M. Godron. 1981. Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. BioScience 31(10):733-740.

Jackson, M. C. 2006. Creative holism: a critical systems approach http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1308780 to complex problem situations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 23(5):647-657. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.799

Forman, R. T. T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.

James, P. E. 1934. The terminology of regional description. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 24(2):78-92. http://

Frost, P., B. Campbell, G. Medina, and L. Usongo. 2006. Landscape-scale approaches for integrated natural resource

dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045603409357125 management in tropical forest landscapes. Ecology and Society 11

Johnston, C. A., N. E. Detenbeck, and G. J. Niemi. 1990. The translational landscape research and practice of designed cumulative effect of wetlands on stream water quality and

landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landscape quantity. A landscape approach. Biogeochemistry 10(2):105-141.

Ecology 24(8):993-1013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9396- http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00002226 y

Kissinger, G., A. Brasser, and L. Gross. 2013. Reducing risk: Naveh, Z. 2001. Ten major premises for a holistic conception of landscape approaches to sustainable sourcing synthesis report.

multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 57 EcoAgriculture Partners 1-35.

(3):269-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00209-2 Klug, H. 2012. An integrated holistic transdisciplinary landscape

Naveh, Z., and A. S. Lieberman. 1984. Landscape ecology. theory planning concept after the Leitbild approach. Ecological

and application. Springer, New York, New York, USA. Indicators 23:616-626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.019

O’Farrell, P. J., and P. M. Anderson. 2010. Sustainable Lattuca, L. R. 2003. Creating interdisciplinarity: grounded

multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Current definitions from college and university faculty. History of

Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2(1-2):59-65. http://dx. Intellectual Culture 3(1):1-20.

doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.005

Lindenmayer, D., R. J. Hobbs, R. Montague-Drake, J. Alexandra, Parrott, L., and W. S. Meyer. 2012. Future landscapes: managing

A. Bennett, M. Burgman, P. Cale, A. Calhoun, V. Cramer, P. within complexity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10 Cullen, D. Driscoll, L. Fahrig, J. Fischer, J. Franklin, Y. Haila,

(7):382-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/110082 M. Hunter, P. Gibbons, S. Lake, G. Luck, C. MacGregor, S.

Pearce, D. 2002. An intellectual history of environmental McIntyre, R. MacNally, A. Manning, J. Miller, H. Mooney, R.

Noss, H. Possingham, D. Saunders, F. Schmiegelow, M. Scott, D. economics. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 27 Simberloff, T. Sisk, G. Tabor, B. Walker, J. Wiens, J. Woinarski,

(1):57-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083429 and E. Zavaleta. 2008. A checklist for ecological management of

Pearson, D. M., and J. T. Gorman. 2010. Exploring the relevance landscapes for conservation. Ecology Letters 11(1):78-91. http://

of a landscape ecological paradigm for sustainable landscapes dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01114.x and livelihoods: a case-application from the Northern Territory Australia. Landscape Ecology 25(8):1169-1183. http://dx.doi.

Lovell, S. T., and D. M. Johnston. 2009. Creating multifunctional

org/10.1007/s10980-010-9498-6

landscapes: how can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(4):212-220.

Pfund, J.-L. 2010. Landscape-scale research for conservation and http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/070178 development in the tropics: fighting persisting challenges. Current

Mastrangelo, M. E., F. Weyland, S. H. Villarino, M. P. Barral, L. Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2(1-2):117-126. http://dx. Nahuelhual, and P. Laterra. 2014. Concepts and methods for

doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.002

landscape multifunctionality and a unifying framework based on Pfund, J.-L., P. Koponen, T. O’Connor, J.-M. Boffa, M. van ecosystem services. Landscape Ecology 29(2):345-358. http://dx.

Noordwijk, and J.-P. Sorg. 2008. Biodiversity conservation and doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9959-9 sustainable livelihoods in tropical forest landscapes. Pages 297-322 in R. Lafortezza, G. Sanesi, J. Chen, and T. R. Crow,

McShane, T. O., P. D. Hirsch, T. C. Trung, A. N. Songorwa, A. editors. Patterns and processes in forest landscapes. Springer, Kinzig, B. Monteferri, D. Mutekanga, H. V. Thang, J. L.

Dammert, M. Pulgar-Vidal, M. Welch-Devineh, J. P. Brosiush, P. Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4­ Coppolillog, and S. O’Connor. 2011. Hard choices: making trade-

020-8504-8_17

offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Pickett, S. T. A., and M. L. Cadenasso. 1995. Landscape ecology: Biological Conservation 144(3):966-972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science 269 j.biocon.2010.04.038 (5222):331-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.269.5222.331